Before the
English had made their first permanent settlements in America
their ingenious merchant adventurers had combined with this
developed institution their well-tested device of a joint stock
or common capital contributed in shares, and so paved the way for
its most extensive application, in the domain of business.(1*)
From the founding of Jamestown to the days of the Revolution,
successive shiploads of British subjects brought with them larger
and larger familiarity with the corporation, -- for plantation
and town organization, for charitable, religious, or literary
foundations, for trading and local business purposes. The
institution was well matured in England during the American
colonial period.

However, there is a great many more sites that describe colonial distrust of the corporation from the beginning.

British Crown Corporations began operating in North America with the start of European settlement. These Crown Corporations, also known as
colonial corporations, were a tool to export wealth back to the stockholders and the monarch that chartered them. The creation of corporations
expanded empire and made the aristocracy wealthy. These early crown corporations were given the right to levy taxes, wage war, and imprison people all
while enjoying a monopoly over trade in the regions where they operated. As Thomas Hobbes stated, corporations are “chips off the old block of
sovereignty.”

It was clear though that these corporations possessed no rights of their own, but were rather artificial creations of the monarch, that existed for
the benefit of the sovereign monarch. At any point the sovereign could revoke a corporation’s charter (the legal document that allows a corporation
to exist).

Colonial anger and resentment against corporate power grew as the English Parliament introduced measures that protected trade by Crown corporations
over that of local colonial merchants. In direct protest against Parliament's tax protections that subsidized the East India Company, colonists
organized an act of civil disobedience that came to be known as the Boston Tea Party. In that one act of property destruction, colonists destroyed the
equivalent of one million dollars of the Company's property.

When American colonists declared independence from England in 1776, they also freed themselves from control by English corporations that
extracted their wealth and dominated trade. After fighting a revolution to end this exploitation, our country’s founders retained a healthy fear of
corporate power and wisely limited corporations exclusively to a business role. Corporations were forbidden from attempting to influence elections,
public policy, and other realms of civic society.
Initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of roads or
canals. Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end. The states also imposed conditions (some of which remain on the books, though
unused) like these*:

Here is some history on the creation of the corporation. This article is also fairly neutral, although at first it sounds anti-corporate, as you read
further the authors opinion does have considerable admiration for the entity.

On 8 June, a Scottish banker named Alexander Fordyce shorted the collapsing Company’s shares in the London markets. But a momentary
bounce-back in the stock ruined his plans, and he skipped town leaving £550,000 in debt. Much of this was owed to the Ayr Bank, which imploded. In
less than three weeks, another 30 banks collapsed across Europe, bringing trade to a standstill.....
...
If this sounds eerily familiar, it shouldn’t. The year was 1772, exactly 239 years ago today, the apogee of power for the corporation as a business
construct. The company was the British East India company (EIC). The bubble that burst was the East India Bubble. Between the founding of the EIC in
1600 and the post-subprime world of 2011, the idea of the corporation was born, matured, over-extended, reined-in, refined, patched, updated,
over-extended again, propped-up and finally widely declared to be obsolete. Between 2011 and 2100, it will decline — hopefully gracefully — into a
well-behaved retiree on the economic scene.

Many I have debated on the issue of corporate control have argued that only government can violate our liberties, but that is not true at all.
Corporations were in fact the original form of government in the U.S., and the very thing that the Colonist revolted against.

Which leads to the question.

Are corporations an entity that exists to establish a governing control over the economy, to limit our ability to engage in free enterprise, to
control the markets, the money supply, and the ability of individuals to engage in business?

Or

Are corporations the model of true capitalism, creators of great wealth, and scientific advancement, the true form of capitalism, the institutions
that have built our great nations?

Corporations are the antithesis of communism. They seek to gather all the means of production into a few hands. Communism seeks to distribute the
means of production into everyone's hands. If you really know what communism is about, and don't believe all the nonsense propaganda put out by the
corporations.

This country has been steadily heading towards complete corporatization for a while now. Which is a VERY BAD thing. So much worse than the worst
implementations of communism. This is the real problem with america, and somehow they got everyone to fear the word communism. Which is actually the
direction we should be heading. No matter how many times people say otherwise, this country is nowhere close to communism. We're on the complete
opposite end of the spectrum.

Don't get me wrong. We should be somewhere in the middle of the spectrum.

10% owns 90% of the wealth. BUT 0.01% owns 99.99% of the means of production. It's the means of production that's the truly important part. You
won't find many people talking about it....
We're in a very dangerous position right now. But it's the opposite of communism, corporatization. that's the real problem.

Well, a corporation is the anti-thesis to the ideal of communism, but the reality of communism, like the former USSR, or current communist China, is
very similar to the corporate structure, as it has evolved.

When a business is incorporated the owner is not held responsible for it's actions. It creates a limited liability for the owner. That is why they
say they are treated as people, because in court essentially they are. The company is held liable in any case, not the owner/s. The owners personal
wealth is protected.

It also gives CAPITALISTS more power politically. If companies of the same ilk join together, cooperate, collectivize, incorporate, all the things
we're taught not to do, then collectively they have more power to lobby government for their benefit.

The exact reason we are taught to be "staunch individualists", because then we are weak. Capitalists collectivize to serve, er, exploit you
better.

Incorporated companies are also known as limited liability companies Ltd, or LLC.

It has nothing to do with communism, because communism is the workers ownership of the means of production. Read a little bit about it and, you know,
deny ignorance.

I think the problem is your definition of communism. Communism, and capitalism, are economic systems that are not compatible with each other, one
being private ownership, the other workers common ownership.

Communism

A system of social organization in which goods are held in common.

Communism in the United States is something of an anomaly. The basic principles of communism are, by design, at odds with the free enterprise
foundation of U.S. capitalism. The freedom of individuals to privately own property, start a business, and own the means of production is a basic
tenet of U.S. government, and communism opposes this arrangement. However, there have been, are, and probably always will be communists in the United
States.

The acknowledged aim of socialism is to take the means of production out of the hands of the capitalist class and place them into the hands of the
workers. This aim is sometimes spoken of as public ownership, sometimes as common ownership of the production apparatus. There is, however, a marked
and fundamental difference....

....Common ownership is the right of disposal by the workers themselves; the working class itself — taken in the widest sense of all that partake in
really productive work, including employees, farmers, scientists — is direct master of the production apparatus, managing, directing, and regulating
the process of production which is, indeed, their common work.

What I don't understand about communist / socialist or any other group , is if they truly believe that such a system could actually work and be
successful why don't they implement it.

This could be done peacefully and legally. For example why doesn't the communist party in the USA start a corporation where each investor (comrade)
can put all their money into the communist corporation

Surely with the pool of money they could buy land,resources,companies,housing,hospital, etc. In addition each investor (Marxist,etc) would get a stake
within the company.

if not, what couldn't you do with a corporation that you could do under what you consider a communist state? Or what are you looking from a communist
state or expect to get from a communist state?

Essentially all corporations are a form of cooperative. Some of them work out quite well, but when it comes to business, crime does pay, and those
organizations willing to do what ever to gain wealth and power, succeed at just that.

Originally posted by interupt42
What I don't understand about communist / socialist or any other group , is if they truly believe that such a system could actually work and be
successful why don't they implement it.

Why don't who implement it?

This could be done peacefully and legally. For example why doesn't the communist party in the USA start a corporation where each investor
(comrade) can put all their money into the communist corporation.

Communists don't start corporations. First off you don't start with a corporation, a corporation is a collective of individual businesses. But
there are many worker owned companies in the US. But it's not easy to do within a capitalist economy. A true communist economy is not based on
making profit, but allowing common access to the means to produce so that no one minority class can monopolise the means to produce, and exploit those
who don't have access. It is a needs based economy, not profit based. Industry would be set up to meet the needs of the community, so jobs are not
sent overseas, and people are not made unemployed because some private owner is not making enough profit for themselves.

Surely with the pool of money they could buy land,resources,companies,housing,hospital, etc. In addition each investor (Marxist,etc) would get
a stake within the company.

if not, what couldn't you do with a corporation that you could do under what you consider a communist state? Or what are you looking from a communist
state or expect to get from a communist state?

But communists don't invest, it's not about investing, and making money. Communism is not a state, it is an economic system. True
communism/socialism has been a working class movement, people who don't have money to invest, people who are exploited by the capitalist system.

Communism/socialism implies workers common ownership and industry set up to meet peoples needs, rather than make profit for private individuals.

Originally posted by interupt42
What I don't understand about communist / socialist or any other group , is if they truly believe that such a system could actually work and be
successful why don't they implement it.

Why don't who implement it?

You or anyone who wants to start a socialist / communist way of living.

Originally posted by ANOK

This could be done peacefully and legally. For example why doesn't the communist party in the USA start a corporation where each investor
(comrade) can put all their money into the communist corporation.

Communists don't start corporations. First off you don't start with a corporation, a corporation is a collective of individual businesses. But
there are many worker owned companies in the US. But it's not easy to do within a capitalist economy. A true communist economy is not based on
making profit, but allowing common access to the means to produce so that no one minority class can monopolise the means to produce, and exploit those
who don't have access. It is a needs based economy, not profit based. Industry would be set up to meet the needs of the community, so jobs are not
sent overseas, and people are not made unemployed because some private owner is not making enough profit for themselves.

The corporation is not what matters, its the way of living correct? So if a corporation lets you live a socialist or communist way why do care?

The only reason a corporation has to make a profit is because its investors in demand it . In your communist community it would not require any
profit. The money would just be redistributed based on the needs of the community. You are also not required to send jobs overseas as a
corporation.

Originally posted by ANOK

Surely with the pool of money they could buy land,resources,companies,housing,hospital, etc. In addition each investor (Marxist,etc) would get
a stake within the company.

if not, what couldn't you do with a corporation that you could do under what you consider a communist state? Or what are you looking from a communist
state or expect to get from a communist state?

But communists don't invest, it's not about investing, and making money. Communism is not a state, it is an economic system. True
communism/socialism has been a working class movement, people who don't have money to invest, people who are exploited by the capitalist system.

Communism/socialism implies workers common ownership and industry set up to meet peoples needs, rather than make profit for private individuals.

The point of setting up the corporation for a communist wouldn't be to invest but rather to allow you to legally live the way you want with your
community.

Originally posted by ANOK
But I thought this thread was about corporations not communism?

Are we not talking about corporations?

So why couldn't the communist WAY OF LIFE not work under a Cooperative?

Originally posted by interupt42
The corporation is not what matters, its the way of living correct? So if a corporation lets you live a socialist or communist way why do
care?

No communism is not a way of living. It is simply who owns the means to produce. If it was a way of living that would apply there are rules. The
whole idea of communism/socialism (same thing) is the workers, you and me, would be free from the restrictions of capitalism, and would be able to
produce what we need.

It does not give a you a plan for how to live, or even how to organise business.

The only reason a corporation has to make a profit is because its investors in demand it . In your communist community it would not require any
profit. The money would just be redistributed based on the needs of the community. You are also not required to send jobs overseas as a
corporation.

Yes because the investors are the owners. I think you are confusing corporations with public companies. A corporation can be a group of privately
owned companies also. Public companies are also capitalist, because the share holders are private owners.

So why couldn't the communist WAY OF LIFE not work under a Cooperative?

Again there is no communist WAY OF LIFE. In a communist economy companies would be cooperative, but that does not mean they are a corporation.
Cooperative simply means worker owned, workers cooperating to run a company. Corporations are different in different types of economies, and there is
nothing essentially wrong with the idea. Capitalists cooperating together is a bad thing FOR US, WE, the workers, cooperating is a good thing for US,
and bad for THEM. Can you not see that? We need to relearn worker solidarity.

What so many ignore is that the ideal of communism and the reality are very different. Countries like the USSR China, wind up being giant
corporations. They compete with other International corporations.

The difference being that here in the U.S., the taxpayers get stuck with supporting the corporations, without the reciprocal support in return.

A corporation, by grant of its legal status akin to the individual, is an extension of the state, and always has been.

Corporations are supposed to be capitalistic, but when the state winds up supporting the corporation, insuring its existence, it is not a capitalistic
entity, but a child of the state, as corporations were originally created.

I agree that typical capitalist corporations are bad for the long term because the investors have unattainable expectations of increasing yearly
profits for the stake holders.

However, if a bunch of communist owned the company they would not be concerned with profit just enough to produce what they need. So greed and
unattainable goals is not a issue. The corporation itself is not the issue its the unrealistic yearly profit increases from greedy investors that
will do anything to get those gains year after year that is the problem. However, in a communist employee owned corporation that would not be an
issue.

Again , what is that you are looking from communism that could not be provided using a corporation?

In a communist economy companies would be cooperative, but that does not mean they are a corporation. Cooperative simply means worker owned, workers
cooperating to run a company.

corporation is just a word or a term, its what it can provide that matters. Why couldn't a group of communist start a new private corporation where
only the workers of the company own the stocks? Wouldn't that give you worker owned, workers cooperating to run a company?

Capitalists cooperating together is a bad thing FOR US, WE, the workers, cooperating is a good thing for US, and bad for THEM.

So again why can't you do that with a private corporation? Let the capitalist run THEIR PROFIT DRIVEN corporations while you the communist owners not
worry about the profit or their companies?.

It appears to me that you might be too wrapped around the terminology more so than the goal. It might not be a communist state but I think that it
might be a better way to getting what you want without forcing others into a system that they might be skeptical off.

As far as I know their is only corporatism around the world and no true capitalist or communist state.Therefore starting small might be the better way
to start than trying to forcefully or verbally convert the masses.

Maybe enough communist type companies are created and enough communist type societies flourish that you might get others to follow by successful
examples.

What we have seen so far is that a corporation is a form of government, as it was originally created for colonization, a capitalistic entity, and a
communistic entity, which mainly serves as a legal entity which shields people working behind the mask from the consequences of their actions.

Here is a quote from the last l link in the Op that puts things into perspective.

The second thing to understand about the evolution of the corporation is that the apogee of power did not coincide with the apogee of reach. In
the 1780s, only a small fraction of humanity was employed by corporations, but corporations were shaping the destinies of empires. In the centuries
that followed the crash of 1772, the power of the corporation was curtailed significantly, but in terms of sheer reach, they continued to grow, until
by around 1980, a significant fraction of humanity was effectively being governed by corporations.

A corporation is a from of government that owns the means of production.

A corporation is a from of government that owns the means of production.

That would be communism.

A corporation is not a form of government. I have explained what corporations are.

Communism is not government ownership of the means of production, that is state-capialism. Communism is not a form of government either, it is an
economic system.

Corporation

The most common form of business organization, and one which is chartered by a state and given many legal rights as an entity separate from its
owners. This form of business is characterized by the limited liability of its owners, the issuance of shares of easily transferable stock, and
existence as a going concern. The process of becoming a corporation, call incorporation, gives the company separate legal standing from its owners
and protects those owners from being personally liable in the event that the company is sued (a condition known as limited liability).
Incorporation also provides companies with a more flexible way to manage their ownership structure. In addition, there are different tax implications
for corporations, although these can be both advantageous and disadvantageous. In these respects, corporations differ from sole proprietorships and
limited partnerships.

Communism doesn't require government at all, so how can it be a state system?

Anarchists are communists, so how can that be eh?

Anarchists are socialists because they want the improvement of society, and they are communists because they are convinced that such a
transformation of society can only result from the establishment of a commonwealth of property.

The aims of anarchists and true communists are identical. Why, then, are anarchists not satisfied to call themselves socialists or communists? Because
they do not want to be confused with people who misappropriate these words, as many people do nowadays, and because they believe communism would be an
incomplete, less-than-desirable system if not infused with the spirit of anarchism.

Note that was written in 1889, the right wing establishment were already appropriated left-wing terms, and demonizing them.

BTW communism and socialism mean the same thing.

Marx and Engels used the terms Communism and Socialism to mean precisely the same thing. They used “Communism” in the early years up to about
1875, and after that date mainly used the term “Socialism.” There was a reason for this. In the early days, about 1847-1850, Marx and Engels chose
the name “Communism” in order to distinguish their ideas from Utopian, reactionary or disreputable movements then in existence, which called
themselves “Socialist.” Later on, when these movements disappeared or went into obscurity, and when, from 1870 onwards, parties were being formed
in many countries under the name Social-Democratic Party or Socialist Party, Marx and Engels reverted to the words Socialist and Socialism. Thus when
Marx in 1875 (as mentioned by Lenin) wanted to make the distinction referred to by the Daily Worker, he spoke of the “first phase of Communist
society” and “a higher phase of Communist society.” Engels, writing in the same year, used the term Socialism, not Communism, and habitually did
so afterwards. Marx also fell, more or less closely, into line with this change of names and terms, using sometimes the one, sometimes the other,
without any distinction of meaning.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.